list_nodes

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation and discloses the default-to-active-graph behavior, but says nothing about permissions, result ordering, pagination, or whether nested frames are traversed recursively.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single tight sentence with the resource list and the default behavior front-loaded. No filler, though the one sentence is doing a lot of implicit work.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter listing tool with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description should at minimum explain the graph vs package distinction and what the returned entries look like. Neither is addressed, so an agent must guess at invocation semantics.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It weakly covers the "graph" parameter via "de un grafo (por defecto, el activo)", but the "package" parameter is entirely unexplained in both schema and description, leaving its meaning and interaction with graph unclear.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ("Lista") and concrete resources ("nodos, frames y comentarios de un grafo"), so an agent knows exactly what is enumerated. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like list_graphs or get_node_info, which keeps it from a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The parenthetical "(por defecto, el activo)" clarifies the default target graph, which implicitly tells the agent it can omit the graph argument. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this over list_graphs or get_node_info, nor any stated prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.